Case law

JOHNS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 31, 2026

But the alleged identity theft in this case is not so clearly established. … Further, to establish liability, a plaintiff must still also establish inaccuracy.

DREIBELBIS v. COUNTY OF BERKS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 7, 2020

“termination memorandum” issued in conjunction with Dreibelbis’ termination on June 21, 2018, which is attached to the Complaint, “clearly” shows that she was terminated because “she failed to comply with the County’s Time … There is clearly a lack of evidence to show that [the employer] did not make a good faith effort in accommodating Capps’ request for intermittent leave.

Williams v. Vaughn

3 F. Supp. 2d 567 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1998

The evidence produced at trial established that petitioner, on or about October 20, 1983, shot Edward Miller, a trucker with whom petitioner had been travelling. See Commonwealth v. … Among some of the changes to habeas law which petitioner claims will prejudice him are: the petitioner must meet a heightened standard of an "unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by

Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. Bowman

221 F. Supp. 3d 617 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 2016

It must establish that the misrepresentation was material. … Godlewski’s responses to the questions about his travel plans were clearly not a misrepresentation and are not material.

ALEJANDRO v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 2022

There is a clear, well-established “obligation to liberally construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings,” Higgs v. … This is clearly inadequate under RESPA. See, e.g., Hartman v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co., No. CIV.A. 07-5407, 2008 WL 2996515, at *3 (E.D. Pa.

HALL v. SEPTA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2022

To state a claim of disability employment discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must establish: “(1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA, (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions … Hall does not clearly allege what the disability is, much less that he was qualified for a job, or what adverse employment actions were taken against him as a result of that disability.

Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Cola

745 F. Supp. 2d 588 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 4, 2010

Clearly, this claim is subsumed by Plaintiffs’ *622 breach of contract claim. … Plaintiffs' claims against Tola are not clearly frivolous 6 .

Siematic Mobelwerke GmbH & Co. KG v. Siematic Corp.

643 F. Supp. 2d 675 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 2009

However, the meaning of language in a contract “cannot be distorted to establish the ambiguity.” Id. … This Court clearly has subject matter jurisdiction over this diversity of citizenship action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a).

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. CAMMARATA

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2023

Accordingly, “[n]ovel or atypical methods [of fraud] should not provide immunity from the securities laws.” Id. … Third, the evidence clearly demonstrates that Cammarata substantially assisted in AlphaPlus’ fraud and, by extension, that of Cohen.

Sun Co. v. Badger Design & Constructors, Inc.

939 F. Supp. 365 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 1996

care in the performance of [the Contract], (b) provide competent engineering services, (c) provide competent construction and project management services, (d) minimize, if not eliminate design errors, (e) send two highly qualified … The district court can grant a Rule 12(b)(1) motion when the claim clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the basis of obtaining jurisdiction or is wholly unsubstantial and frivolous.

Harp v. Rahme

984 F. Supp. 2d 398 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 2013

In the instant case, because Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendants’ use of “Laurice & Co.” prima facie infringes on Plaintiffs marks in violation of Lanham Act § 1141, Plaintiff will also be unable to establish the first … This language suggests that Plaintiff believes that the record clearly supports a verdict in her favor, in other words, that she, rather than Defendants, is entitled to summary judgment.

Diamond State Insurance v. Ranger Insurance

47 F. Supp. 2d 579 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 17, 1999

As with Diamond’s poh-cy, the Driver qualifies as a permissive user under Ranger’s pohcy because the Driver, acting pursuant to the Trip Lease executed by Aetna, was operating a covered truck leased by Aetna with Aetna’s … Ranger asserts that Diamond’s summary judgment motion as to the bad faith claim should be denied because: (1) there is no controlling precedent that clearly establishes Ranger’s duties to the Driver and Schuck, which refutes

ALEJANDRO v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 30, 2022

There is a clear, well-established “obligation to liberally construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings,” Higgs v. … This is clearly inadequate under RESPA. See, e.g., Hartman v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co., No. CIV.A. 07-5407, 2008 WL 2996515, at *3 (E.D. Pa.

Akil v. City of Philadelphia

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2023

According to Plaintiff, “[m]onth after month passed and Tucker just remained out of work while he was visibly healthy, obviously asymptomatic, and clearly not contagious.” Id. ¶ 239. … To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must plead with sufficient detail that each Defendant violated the Constitution or federal law in a matter that deprived Plaintiff of his rights, privileges, or immunities

GROSSINGER

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 2026

To establish a procedural due process violation, a person must first demonstrate that he has been deprived of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest. Daniels v. … “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. . . He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.”

Katrina S. Ferguson v. City of Philadelphia Department of Human Services, et al.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 26, 2026

To support a substantive due process claim in the context of dependency proceedings, a child welfare worker’s decision-making must be so clearly arbitrary that it shocks the conscience. Miller, 174 F.3d at 376. … To establish a claim under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must allege that: “(1) [s]he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) [s]he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of some public

Dixon v. United States

151 F. Supp. 3d 582 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2015

Those principles require a convicted defendant to establish both that (1) his counsel’s performance was deficient, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Id. at 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; Holland v. … Kellum, 356 F.3d 285, 289 (3d Cir.2004) (explaining that 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (f) “allows a sentence ‘without regard to any statutory minimum sentence’ if the ‘safety valve’ factors are established”).

AFZAL v. AMERICAN BOARD OF INTERNAL MEDICINE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 3, 2022

summary judgment.31 The plaintiff, a foreign born and trained physician, sued the Board for depriving him of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment after he failed to pass the Board’s qualifying … Afzal] right, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution or laws of US. The private [Board] is exercising its authority that have its source in state Medical Board.

Levan v. United States

128 F. Supp. 2d 270 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 2001

See Jones, 231 F.3d at 1236 (“Apprendi certainly established a new rule”); United States v. … In the interests of judicial economy, we will not delve into the intricacies of Pennsylvania law to determine whether Norman qualified for the higher maximum term.

KRASLEY

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 6, 2026

A single employment decision, such as termination, qualifies as a municipal policy if the decisionmaker possessed final authority with respect to the action. Fletcher v. … App’x 681, 687 (3d Cir. 2011) (“No Pennsylvania statute establishes, and no Pennsylvania court has recognized, a private cause of action for damages under the Pennsylvania Constitution.”); Rega v. U.P.M.C. Cmty.